It’s not clear to me from the @Gambia_MOJ application whether the request would reach only material that was posted publicly on @Facebook by the named accounts & pages or would also cover private communications using Facebook messenger. No mention of WhatsApp. #Rohingya 2/6
This is an effort by @Gambia_MOJ to develop additional evidence that shows a government policy by #Myanmar directed at the physical destruction of the #Rohingya (ie genocidal intent), and this evidence also relates to the claim of incitement to commit genocide. 3/6
The evidence requested might also show that #Myanmar officials & military have engaged in anti-#Rohingya activities since January 2020 that run afoul of the Court’s Order indicating provisional measures. 4/6
One question is whether the @Gambia_MOJ discovery request can be handled in an expeditious manner and made to work with the ICJ’s briefing schedule; if there is pushback from @Facebook or #Myanmar, there is not much time before Gambia is due to file its memorial in October. 5/6
Unclear from @Gambia_MOJ filing if @Facebook is refusing to cooperate. Facebook already stands accused of failing to intervene in a timely manner to prevent misuse of its platform in #Myanmar. Does it want to be seen as impeding the #ICJ case re claims of genocide? #Rohingya? 6/6
This @BBCNews piece addresses recent confusion about the term ‘plausibility’ in ICJ decisions: . It mostly gets this right; the ICJ refers formally to plausibility of 'rights’ rather than ‘claims’. But there is some lingering confusion here. 1/8bbc.com/news/articles/…
The article discusses a debate within the UK about whether the ICJ's January order—in which the ICJ found the rights at issue to be plausible AND a real & imminent risk of irreparable prejudice to those rights—meant it was incorrect to refer to a ‘plausible risk of genocide’. 2/8
The article describes this as a debate about whether the ICJ ‘was convinced there was a risk of that happening’. But is THAT really what the debate was about? The January order made it very clear that the ICJ saw a real risk of Genocide Convention violations *going forward*. 3/8
South Africa returns to the #ICJ once again seeking urgent provisional measures against #Israel. The request asks the ICJ to order Israel to immediately withdraw and cease the offensive in Rafah and relinquish control of the Rafah & Kerem Shalom crossings to allow in aid. 1/14
Very strong language: SA describes the #Rafah assault as ‘killing the Palestinian people of Gaza, while Israel is simultaneously starving them, and deliberately denying them humanitarian aid and the basic necessities of life’ (¶19). 2/14
The focus of the request is on how new facts (namely the Rafah assault & shutting down humanitarian aid entry points) amounts to a new urgent risk of irreparable prejudice harm to the rights at issue in the case. 3/14
Re Judge Donoghue's @BBCHARDtalk interview: I realize this won't satisfy many people, but there is a difference between saying (1) that the ICJ did not decide that claims of genocide are plausible (what she said) and (2) that the Court decided that such claims are NOT plausible.
The ICJ did NOT reject South Africa's genocide claims or declare than implausible (this is consistent with Judge Donoghue's remarks). One could instead think about this (i.e., plausibility of the *claim*) as a question the Court did not need to decide in granting interim relief.
What gets lost is that the ICJ found a real & imminent risk of irreparable prejudice to the plausible rights of Palestinians in Gaza. This is forward looking. This can be reasonably construed as a finding that S. Africa established a plausible risk of genocide *going forward*.
Having now had the chance to read the Day 2 transcript in #Nicaragua v #Germany, I think Nicaragua may come up empty at the #ICJ. Not because the law means that Nicaragua’s claims are fundamentally flawed or inadmissible, but because the facts, it appears, are on Germany’s side.
Germany’s argument on prima facie jurisdiction (plus Monetary Gold) was not wholly convincing. The key difference b/w claims based on existence of a serious risk of IHL violations/genocide versus claims requiring prior establishment of violations was too easily brushed aside.
That said, I would not discount Germany’s arguments about Nicaragua’s alleged failure to have established the existence of a dispute prior to bringing the case. This case may (unhelpfully?) demonstrate why the dispute requirement (which I strongly dislike) has some merit.
In response to #SouthAfrica’s request of 6 March 2024 & the deteriorating situation in #Gaza, the #ICJ has modified the provisional measures that it indicated against #Israel on 26 January. Here are some key points and observations on the decision and the separate opinions.🧵1/20
What has the ICJ ordered Israel to do? By unanimous vote, the Court directed Israel to take all necessary and effective measures to ensure unhindered provision at scale of urgently needed aid and basic services, including by increasing the number of land crossing points. 2/20
By 15-1, the Court ordered Israel to ensure that its military does not commit acts which violate the rights of Palestinians in Gaza as a protected group under the Genocide Convention, including by preventing delivery of humanitarian aid. 3/20
The #ICJ will issue its decision on #SouthAfrica’s request for provisional measures against #Israel starting at 1 pm today in The Hague. If you are watching the live feed at UN Web TV (), here are some key points to look out for. 🧵tinyurl.com/5n6m94px
Preliminary point: The ICJ will not make any determination today about whether Israel’s actions in #Gaza amount to genocide. This is a question for the merits phase. This decision is about protecting the rights at issue while the case is pending.
First, has SA met the threshold test for the ICJ to issue provisional measures (PMs)? Points of interest: 1. Has South Africa established that a bilateral dispute about the Genocide Convention existed between it and Israel prior to filing the case? This goes to jurisdiction.